The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Friends Action Network is a grassroots network of faculty, students, staff, alumni and community members committed to building public support for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system's annual legislative requests.

Minnesota State Legislature - What"s New

The Chronicle (February 2009): An internal newsletter for the Office of the Chancellor

Monday, April 7, 2008

Governor Tim Pawlenty today line-item vetoed from the bonding bill six Minnesota State Colleges and Universities projects totaling $46.7 million. This compares to $26 million in vetoes for the University of Minnesota.

The vetoed Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system projects and their priority ranking on the board's list are as follows:

#8 North Hennepin Community College business and technology addition and renovation, $13.3 million;

#14 Classroom renovations, $3.6 million, at Central Lakes College, Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Minnesota West Community and Technical College, Northland Community and Technical College, Pine Technical College and Rochester Community & Technical College;

#28 Property acquistion, $8.8 million at Bemidji State University, Dakota County Technical College, Fond du Lac Tribal & Community College, Minnesota State University Moorhead, Vermilion Community College, Minnesota State College - Southeast Technical and Metropolitan State University.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

The House and Senate took up the bonding conference committee report on the floors yesterday The debate in both bodies consisted of the size of the bill, specifically the difference between the $925 million bill and the governor's recommendation at $825 million. Proponents of the bill say it would create jobs to help Minnesota’s economy. Critics call the bill veto-bait because it totals about $100 million more than the governor’s proposal, and does not adhere to the indicator traditionally used to establish a bond spending limit.

Since about 1979, 3 percent of general fund spending has been the target for general obligation bonding. The governor has said that a bill beyond that threshold would not make it past his veto pen. House and Senate democrats question the use of that indicator. Some are advocating for one used by several states that is based off a percent of personal income. They also say that the sale of bonds can be staged in such a way that spending will not exceed 3 percent in any given year. Conference committee co-chair, Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, referenced the bonding bill from last session that the governor vetoed. She said those projects now cost $40 to $50 million more this year. Co-chair, Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, called special attention to the bill's focus on higher education. We devoted significant dollars to our higher education systems’ bonding proposals, he said.

After more than three hours of debate, the House passed the bill by a vote of 90-42, and the Senate passed the bill 57-10 after only 30 minutes of debate. It now heads to the governor.